> the party was called Social Democratic (and formed in 1898)
> until 1918.
LoL,
I didn't think I would ever be thrown back into debating 'ML' with someone !
But seriously, yes the name communist party came about later, but the russian marxist movement started earlier, a lot earlier. I think the 'League for the Emancipation of Labor' of 1883 could be considered to be the seed point of the movement.
> As far as name changes at Ellis Island, that seems to be a myth.
Not that I can proove it, but changes did occur at some point in the process. I am not sure about the role officials played, I do however know that especially greek and jewish names ended up completely botched. Many immigrants left through ports away from their home countries, some of the alterations might have happened during the boarding process.
> Angel Island was a completely different story. There seems
> to have been quite a lot of racism there.
I think particularly the treatment of chinese immigrants is a dark chapter of american history, I have to admit my only spotty knowledge there.
> Legacy INS is the wrong party to blame (INS/CIS is inefficient,
Oh yes they are. It is a 'institutionally evil' structure. Anytime a law comes down from congress, they will find a way to interpret it in the most restrictive way conceivable. The processes they follow are designed to maximize the time required and to maximize the degree of control they can exert on peoples lives. (or how can you explain the hair-splitting between job titles in the IT sector).
(Even the IRS is less of a desaster than the INS. If I need a microfiche copy of my past tax-returns, it is a phonecall away).
> like the one Canada has (and Australia, for that matter) would be
> more beneficial to the US economy than the current system.
ANY system would be better. The canadian system is a start, it has however one serious flaw: the strong reliance on formal education to determine the 'value' of an immigrant. As a result you have PhD's working construction security but you don't have skilled craftsmen to work on the construction site (ok, ok, this is an oversimplification, but you get the idea)
> the likelyhood for the current system to change is rather small,
Small ? This system is more inert to change than wax to acid.
> From what I've heard it wasn't easy back then. And it was all up
> to the officer, there was no certainty to the process,
And the difference to todays process would be ?
> It's not comforting to know that there was a 10-15%
> (or whatever) chance of being wrongfully imprisoned
Not necessarily 'wrongful'. It was sort of a 'secondary inspection' process. 80% of the people who had to go before the panel got admitted, others had to have a relative post a bond to ensure their economic survival.
I am surely not an expert on Kafka. But looking at the travails of some folks I know, I do feel reminded of 'The trial'.
If I ever plan to bring some relative into the country, here is the plan: I'll buy a small ranch in Montana and a bunch of sheep. Then I post an ad in the local 'help wanted' section for a shepherder. 'two years experience needed'. This will get papers in maybe a year, after 6 months of herding sheep on my ranch he can go on to finish his PhD...Perfectly legal and undoubtedly the fastest way.